Ian Gawler (IG) has now publicly admitted knowledge of errors in two previous Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) articles about his cancer recovery, written 30 years apart!

The more recent supposedly peer reviewed article article (2008), was written by his wife and a colleague – Ruth Gawler and Prof Jelinek but they were not there at the time of his cancer recovery and must have relied on data from Ian Gawler himself. The other was written in 1978 by Ainslie Meares who taught Ian meditation for a short while.

The Gawler/Jelinek errors are serious because they make it appear that onlyafter chemotherapy and radiation failed, that Ainslie Meares’ meditation method and strict adherence to a vegan diet were responsible for Ian Gawler’s recovery.

Grace Gawler, Ian’s first wife and care giver for many years was there with Ian for 22 years. She knows what he ate because she cooked all the food.

Grace remembers what happened and has photo evidence to back her memory.She provided evidence to the that in mid Feb 1976, Ian abandoned Meare’s meditation sessions because he deteriorated rapidly. He attended the sessions for just six weeks. Palliative radiation was tried in Feb 76 but it was not until Oct 76 that chemotherapy was trialled. The importance of time-lines in this case is obvious.

The articles are shown to have multiple errors including time-line inversions, incorrect photo dates and factual errors. They have been linked to the Gawler Foundation website for nearly two years.

MJA editor Martin Van Der Weyden rejected the accusation, saying Dr Gawler had already “capitalised on this ‘spontaneous cure’ ” through his foundation and biography, where the events had also been recorded.

Van Der Weyden would have been more intrigued had he known of the Gawler Foundation’s website listing of the posts (above) which clearly identified him as the patient. Remember these were posted before the 2008 Gawler/Jelinek MJA article was published. These posts were available to the public for almost 2 years prior to Grace’s 2010 MJA refute. This highlights the issue of credibility and why the debate must be made public.

Surprisingly IG states the significant timeline errors were ‘not important’ but then also admits to not following a vegan diet. If you ask cancer patients following rigid vegan diets plus long hours of meditation in the hope they too can achieve a ‘miracle’ recovery like IG, I think they may say it was ‘critically’ important.

Dr Linda Calabresi’s Australian Doctor editorial can be accessed at … http://insidewww.australiandoctor.com.au/news/58/0c06d258.asp
Dr Calabresi makes good points, however describing this as an argument between two Gawler wives diverts the main issue—Dr Calabresis concludes in her article, “As much as I am fascinated by the claim and counterclaim aspect of this story, and the people involved, I believe it is important that the record be set straight. The implications are significant for those who are faced with potentially fatal malignancies, who are often desperate and vulnerable. Fiddling with the facts is simply not fair.

Dr Calabresi suggests the record in this case must be set straight. I agree!

The following questions must be answered…

1. Given IG knew of significant errors in both MJA reports why did he take no action?

2. Why the fuss about medical ethics/identification when the MJA posts had been on his website for almost 2 years?

3. Why has there been no response to Grace from Ruth Gawler and Prof Jelinek?

4. Why has the GF not responded to Grace regarding changes to the way the IG story, central to their activities, is told to patients and GPs?

In Oct 2010 A Current Affair (ACA) spent 3 hours filming Grace about the errors but were unable to get comments from either the authors, Ian Gawler or the Gawler Foundation. This is perhaps one of the most important debates for complementary cancer medicine in Australia. Please contact ACA to encourage them to air the program. Grace is willing to publicly debate this issue anywhere/anytime.

Given the long term media coverage of IG’s recovery, significant publicity is now required to correct this urban cancer myth now virally spread through the internet and other mediums. One would wonder why such an important community issue is not being debated in the public domain. Our community’s most vulnerable cancer patients need to base their decisions upon the truth.